Censored: Appeal for AG’s Blue Book fails

news The Attorney-General’s Department has rejected an appeal for a Freedom of Information request which would have seen the incoming ministerial briefing (known as the ‘Blue Book’) provided to new Attorney-General George Brandis, censoring the release of the entire document.

When new Ministers are sworn in to lead government portfolios, they receive extensive briefings on those portfolios from their departmental bureaucrats. Known as ‘Red Books’ for a returning Government or ‘Blue Books’ for a new Government, the briefing documents contain a wealth of information about the new Minister’s portfolio, commitments, decisions and so on.

Over the next several years, the Attorney-General’s Department will examine a number of issues which are of intense public interest, ranging from data retention and surveillance to reform of Australia’s copyright legislation to the issue of online copyright infringement (Internet piracy).

Because of the importance of these issues and the need to ensure that both the Australian public and other sides of politics are fully informed about these issues, in October Delimiter sought access under Freedom of Information laws to the Blue Book ministerial briefing provided to new Coalition Attorney-General George Brandis.

Last month the department initially rejected the Freedom of Information application. At the time, the Attorney-General’s Department, decided to block the release of Brandis’ ‘Blue Book’ entirely. “… If the document is disclosed, I consider there would be a substantial adverse effect on the Department’s ability to establish and maintain a good working relationship with the new Minister,” wrote Emily Roper, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Attorney-General’s Department, in a letter to Delimiter on the issue.

Delimiter sought, in the first instance, an internal review by the Department of Roper’s decision, noting that it was likely that a close examination of the Attorney-General’s ‘Blue Book’ would find that substantial portions of the document are not controversial and would be suitable for public release. This suggestion is based on experience reading other public incoming ministerial briefing documents. In addition, precedent suggested that it was not unusual for departments to release their incoming ministerial briefing documents, with several departments having approved similar releases in the past.

“Blocking the entire ‘Blue Book’ document from release is not consistent with the approach taken by other departments over the past several years, and ignores the significant public interest arguments for its release,” Delimiter wrote in its appeal letter. “Furthermore, there is substantial reason to believe that significant portions of the document are not controversial.”

However, in a new letter sent to Delimiter late last week (and available online in full in PDF format), Louise Glanville, Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, supported the initial decision to block the release of the Blue Book.

Glanville is the same departmental staffer who told a Senate Estimates hearing in mid-November that the Attorney-General’s Department had removed PDFs previously published on its website as part of its Freedom of Information disclosure log because they did not meet web “accessibility” guidelines and were hurting the website’s overall accessibility rating.

In her statement of reasons for rejecting the appeal, Glanville said precedent had nothing to do with her decision.

“In my view, the starting point for the consideration of whether access to the document would contrary to the public interest is not whether documents of a similar nature have been disclosed in the past,” wrote Glanville. “The obligation of the decision-maker is rather to apply their best understanding of the provisions of the FOI Act and to balance the relevant public interest considerations using their knowledge of both the content of the document and surrounding circumstances at the time of making the decision.”

Glanville re-affirmed the department’s initial decision that the disclosure of the Blue Book would “cause significant detriment to the ability of this department to provide frank and honest advice to a new Minister”.

As with other similar applications, Glanville also cited the view of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, when in Opposition, that the release of incoming ministerial briefings would contravene Westminister political traditions.

Delimiter has decided not to appeal this specific FOI application for Brandis’ Blue Book further. Both initial decisions on this issue have referred to decisions made by the Office of the Australian Information Commission. Based on prior experience, Delimiter believes it is unlikely that the OAIC would overturn the two initial decisions with respect to this document.

10 COMMENTS

“cause significant detriment to the ability of this department to provide frank and honest advice to a new Minister”

This is a worrying comment that we have seen in the other FoI requests. It speaks of departments afraid to speak views that are different from the minister, it doesn’t bode well for public policy when the departments end up full of yes men.

This goes to the purpose of bureaucratic ‘permanency’ – where public servants could achieve a position where their job security was guaranteed against the whims of an incoming Minister or Government. If you’re not afraid of losing your job, you are more likely to be honest and frank when advising Ministers.

The problem, of course, was the tremendous number of lazy asses sucking up public funds doing pretty much nothing, because they couldn’t be sacked. Getting rid of such waste was necessary, but the cost has been obsequious, politically motivated departments as changeable in expert opinion and advice as the political wind they find blowing around them.

Mind you, public service has always been far more about political strategy than ability and expertise – department heads from one end of local government to the far end of federal services are almost universally those who are best at playing internal politics and finding receptive ears at the highest level of influence – such people have always been so busy furthering their careers they don’t have time for actual functional work.

My point being there is no workable mechanism whereby bureaucrats can advise Ministers apolitically without fear of backlash against their job security, so the system necessarily ensures briefings and advice will be biassed. If you want unbiased reports and advice, make them written for Parliament with full public transparency from the outset – if Ministers are forced to operate at arm’s length from their departments you will have much greater hope of unbiased advice. Particularly if you remove the ability of Ministers to sack public service officers…

“This is not surprising, but predictable.
The Coalition is a closed shop; welcome to the new world of ‘No’.

One of the biggest themes from the Coalition campaign was their “Plan for Better Transparency and Accountability”…

Obviously they have become a major fan of the Murdoch Press, even to the point of adopting their strategy of calling themselves the opposite of what they are. Fox “News” calls itself “Fair and Balanced”, the LNP calls it self transparent and accountable…
Some days it feels as if Lewis Carroll was creating the world we live in.

Glanville re-affirmed the department’s initial decision that the disclosure of the Blue Book would “cause significant detriment to the ability of this department to provide frank and honest advice to a new Minister”

Translation:

“We know that our major projects at present will amplify surveillance powers and allow immunity from prosecution; screw the citizens of Australia in as many ways as we can think of; undermine our national sovereignty and rule of law, subordinating them to US business interests. Therefore, we are too ashamed to let anyone find out about it. So piss off.”

“the Attorney-General’s Department had removed PDFs previously published on its website as part of its Freedom of Information disclosure log because they did not meet web “accessibility” guidelines and were hurting the website’s overall accessibility rating.”

iunno about you lot but that is one of the most piss poor attempts at a weasel ive seen in a while.

accessibility is important. but it does not supersede release of important information. if its not accessible – im presuming that language is WRT disability folk – that doesnt mean its not useful info to able folks. if you then cut off access for full ability folk on the basis its not yet fit for purpose for disableds, and you remove even the portion abled folk can access, i have a real issue with that. ive mucked my wording a bit, but i hope you get the idea.

to me, its an end run used as information control and it pisses me off, particularly given the bashing this party gave Labor over its tenure on the same issue. election, to 7 oct, to 7 nov, to 7 dec. we’re just over that and if the Labor tenure was unsavoury by three years this mob have managed it in three months. shame, shame, shame.

Welcome! We were an energetic and engaged community of Australians who worked with or who were interested in technology -- all sorts of IT professionals, IT managers, CIOs, tech policy-makers and tech enthusiasts.